Alphanumeric Wars: Can You Trademark a Two-Letter Code? (The IndiGo '6E' vs. Mahindra Case)
In the high-stakes world of branding, simplicity is often the ultimate sophistication. But when simplicity is reduced to just two characters, it becomes a legal minefield. The recent clash between aviation giant IndiGo (InterGlobe Aviation) and automotive major Mahindra & Mahindra over the alphanumeric code "6E" has ignited a fierce debate in intellectual property circles.
IndiGo, synonymous with the airline code "6E" (often stylized as "sexy"), challenged Mahindra's use of "BE 6e" for its new range of electric vehicles. This dispute offers critical lessons for tech startups, app developers, and branding agencies who increasingly rely on short codes and acronyms.
1. The Core Dispute: Aviation vs. Automotive
IndiGo argued that "6E" is not just an IATA code assigned by an international body but a trademark they have cultivated over 18 years ("6E Prime", "6E Tiffin"). They claimed Mahindra's use of "6e" for a car model would cause confusion and dilute their brand.
Mahindra countered that "6e" in their context stood for "Electric" and was used in a completely different class of goods (Automobiles vs. Airlines), making consumer confusion unlikely.
2. The Legal Hurdle: Distinctiveness of Short Marks
Under Indian Trademark Law, short alphanumeric marks (like 2-letter or 3-letter codes) face a higher threshold for protection. They are often considered lacking "inherent distinctiveness."
The "Acquired Distinctiveness" Test
To monopolize a code like "6E" or "X1" or "S7", a brand must prove that the code has lost its primary alphanumeric meaning and is exclusively associated with their brand in the public mind. While IndiGo has achieved this in aviation, extending that monopoly to all other sectors (like cars) is legally challenging without a "Well-Known Trademark" declaration.
3. Dilution and The Sectoral Divide
A key defense in such cases is the difference in Class of Goods. Trademarks are registered under specific classes (Class 39 for Transport, Class 12 for Vehicles).
Usually, identical marks can coexist in different classes (e.g., Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets). However, IndiGo argued on the grounds of Dilution—that their brand is so famous that seeing "6e" on a car would inherently remind a consumer of the airline, thereby blurring the distinctiveness of their mark.
4. Lessons for Startups and Tech Brands
For app developers and startups naming their products with short codes (e.g., "G2", "Q4", "AI"), this case serves as a warning:
Why You Should Be Careful
- Difficulty in Registration: The Registry often rejects 2-letter marks as "non-distinctive."
- Policing Costs: You will constantly have to fight other companies using similar acronyms in adjacent sectors.
- Searchability Issues: Short codes are harder to rank for uniquely in search engines compared to coined words (like "Swiggy" or "Zomato").
Conclusion
The "Alphanumeric Wars" highlight that while a short code is great for design, it is expensive to defend legally. Unless you have the deep pockets to establish "acquired distinctiveness" across multiple sectors, startups are often safer choosing unique, coined brand names rather than generic alphanumeric soup.
Office of M S Sulthan Legal Associates
For inquiries regarding Trademark registration, brand protection, or IP litigation, please refer to the contact details below.
